Tells it like it is..
network.nationalpost.com
After years of inflamed global warming alarm, we are beginning to see a period of sobering-up
Negotiations over the future of an international climate treaty remain as deadlocked as ever. Predictably, the latest round of talks at the Group of Eight (G8) summit in L’Aquila, Italy, was unable to reconcile conflicting positions and incompatible demands on CO2 emissions and climate billions that divide the world’s industrialized and emerging nations.
The non-committal outcome of the climate talks by the 17 world leaders of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) was as expected. By prolonging the global stalemate, however, the deadlock is beginning to solidify. It now looks likely to become a permanent feature of international climate diplomacy.
Thus, as we get closer to the Copenhagen conference in December, the chances of a global treaty are fading. The probability of a Kyoto-style treaty with legally binding emissions targets is close to zero as the gap between the political stance of the developed and the developing nations has been growing ever wider.
Of course, the Copenhagen climate meeting is likely to produce an agreement — just like the Major Economies Forum cobbled one together in L’Aquila. It will, most likely, comprise of fine words and lofty promises, including the pledge that any future warming — should warming commence again at some point in the future — will be limited to no more than a moderate rise of 2C. And as always with climate conferences of this nature, the Copenhagen agreement will be hailed as a historic breakthrough in the fight to save the planet.
The G8 summit provided a good example of this traditional form of celebration. Its political promises, however, are often not worth the paper on which they are printed. The Russian government openly acknowledged this cliché when it distanced itself from the agreed G8 target of reducing CO2 by 80% in 2050. The economic advisor of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declared bluntly that Russia was not prepared to sacrifice its economic growth for the purpose of CO2 reductions. Canada also said it would not hit the target.
Russia’s provocative U-turn signalled clearly that G8 pronouncements are immaterial and should not be taken too seriously. In reality, Moscow has no intention whatsoever to cut its emissions in the near future. Quite the opposite. Just over a month ago, the Russian President announced that his country intended to increase CO2 emissions by 30% by 2020. No wonder that G8 states find it impossible to agree on a credible, short-term emissions target as the developing world is demanding.
No wonder then that India and China remain opposed to any target setting. Neither can afford to sign up to mandatory emissions cuts, in whatever form or shape. Both countries are in the midst of economic and energy booms that will determine much of the 21st century. Both countries have categorically ruled out any mandatory emissions cuts, thereby ensuring that the diplomatic tug of war will continue for many years to come.
Even if they significantly increased their energy efficiency and were able to introduce an extensive assortment of low-carbon technologies (which is in the range of the possible), it is still expected that China’s and India’s CO2 emissions will nearly double over the next three decades.
By 2050, the combined population of China and India will have grown to a staggering three billion people. By then, most Chinese and Indians will have adopted an urban lifestyle, with cars, air conditioning, refrigerators, televisions and computers. This rate of population and economic growth together with the most extraordinary rise in energy demand makes any hope of medium-term emission reductions redundant.
All Western efforts to coerce these emerging countries into a legally binding climate treaty are prone to failure because the nations whose emissions count most — China and India —will continue to reject, categorically, any mandatory caps on their rapidly rising emissions. To counter Western pressure, India and China (in close partnership with other emerging nations) have raised their demands to such levels that they are effectively impossible to accept. They have told their Western counterparts that unless the G8 signs up to cut emissions by at least 40% by 2020, they would not commit to any emissions targets.
In addition, they are calling for new funding commitments from developed countries to spend up to 1% of their GDP on climate mitigation and adaptation — amounting to up to $200-billion per year. It is hard to see that the West, battered by the worst economic crisis since the Second World War, would ever agree to such a wealth transfer to its chief competitors — even in good times.
In short, it would appear that after years of inflamed global warming alarm, we are beginning to see a period of sobering-up, where national interests and economic priorities are overriding environmental concerns and utopian proposals.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the diplomatic impasse cannot be overcome in Copenhagen or, indeed, anytime soon. What is needed in these circumstances is a calm deceleration strategy that would cool future climate negotiations and take the wind out of the sails of green campaigners. Such a deliberate slow-down could help to lower the political temperature and turn negotiations into routine events, thereby shedding much of their media hype and agitation. In the run-up to Copenhagen, it will be crucial for governments around the world to come up with fresh approaches and ideas that can lower expectations and manage to direct the permanent stalemate for many years to come. |
